Axioms concerning uncertain disagreement points in 2-person bargaining problems

We consider 2-person bargaining situations in which the feasible set is known, but the disagreement point is uncertain. We investigate the implications of various axioms concerning uncertain disagreement points and characterize the family of linear solutions, which includes the egalitarian, lexicographic egalitarian, Nash, and Kalai-Rosenthal solutions. We also show that how the important subfamilies (or members) of this family can be singled out by imposing additional axioms or strengthening the axioms used in the characterizations.

The Logic of Ceasefires in Civil War

Ceasefires play a role in almost all civil war peace processes. Yet existing studies undertheorize the ways in which different logics drive the design of ceasefire agreements, and the effect this has on violence suspension. Building on bargaining theory and existing ceasefire literature, we identify different bargaining problems conflict parties face over the course of a conflict, and three classes of ceasefire design they use to address these problems. We argue that the effect of ceasefires is driven both by these underlying logics and by the provisions they contain. Building on the PA-X data to capture the provisions included within all written civil war ceasefires between 1990 and 2019, and using Uppsala Conflict Data Program georeferenced event data, we estimate models of ceasefire survival, with conflict deaths as the main measure of whether a ceasefire remains in place. We find that definitive ceasefires (i.e., agreements with demobilization and incompatibility provisions), followed by preliminary ceasefires (i.e., agreements with compliance mechanisms), are associated with longer periods of violence suspension than cessation of hostilities agreements that lack such provisions. We discuss the implications of our results for conflict parties and third parties seeking to facilitate the transition from war to peace.

Game Theory and the Law

Classical game theory analyses strategic interactions under extreme idealisations. It assumes cognitively unconstrained players with common knowledge concerning game forms, preferences, and rationality. Such ideal theory is highly relevant for human self-understanding as a rational being or what Selten called ‘rationology’. Yet, ideal theory is highly irrelevant for real actors who are in Selten’s sense boundedly rational. Starting from essential features of real bargaining problems, elements of Selten’s ‘micro-psychological’ and Raiffa’s ‘telescopic’ behavioural bargaining theory are introduced. From this, an outline of a workable rationality approach to bargaining emerges. It suggests relying on telescopic elements from Raiffa’s model to provide general outcome orientation and on insights from Selten’s aspiration adaptation model of individual decision making to develop process-sensitive action advice. A bird’s eye view of a prominent recent case of ‘bargaining in the shadow of the courts’ shows a surprisingly good fit of outcomes with the implications of Raiffa’s telescopic approach while remaining compatible with a Seltenian process. Though due to a lack of specific information because the micro-foundations for the telescopic theory cannot be provided, it is at least clear how further case studies and experiments might be put to work here.